Comments:Incomplete data may mislead doctors into overprescribing expensive medicines
Oh, lovely[edit]
More examples of the medical industries screwing over the health of the public to make a quick buck. Fun! --Poisonous (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems like faulty logic[edit]
Isn't it rather common in science, in general, for major public publications to publish less than half of the studies available on a topic? 74.229.182.73 13:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Published does not mean that it can be read or will be read[edit]
When a publication is published, it does not mean that it is available to doctors. The reason for this is that a majority of doctors are not subscribed to all the publications where these papers are published. When salesman make them available, it can be understood to be self serving ie critical papers will not be available in this way.
When papers are available under Open Access, it does not mean that these publications are available either. An Open Access document may not be available for general publication for a period of up to a year. One of the consequences is that the paper is unlikely to be read at the end of the embargoed period; many doctors think that they know what there is to know. Also they do not have the time to read everything there is to read anyway. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)